Search form

Receive bi-weekly news from The League delivered straight to your inbox.

Share This

June 4, 2014

FAQ: Every Bicyclist Counts

Research/Policy

by Andy Clarke

Our Every Bicyclists Counts report has generated quite a lot of discussion since its release last month, which is good. That's why we do these things!

We've heard everything from heartfelt "thanks" for digging into a genuinely difficult topic to the despairing "what am I supposed to teach my students now." Let me see if I can provide a little more commentary and context to address some of the more frequent questions we've been getting.

I think the first thing to recognize is that this is a policy report. It's not a marketing document or an educational tool. EBC highlights the poor quality of data, reporting and legal/judicial response to fatal bike crashes and demands more. And these are the crashes for which we have the most reliable data! The report identifies some inherent bias in the way bicyclists are treated when they are the victims of crashes involving motorists -- and there is a strong possibility that this carries over to more everyday interactions with law enforcement, traffic safety professionals, traffic engineers and the media.

We are well aware that EBC is sobering reading, and not a document you want to give to a class of eager-to-learn students wanting to enjoy the healthy benefits of bicycling. That's not the intended purpose at all. The reality, which we have to address, is that bicycling isn't without risk. In fact, because of a lot of factors -- road design, driver and/or cyclist behavior, vehicle or surface defects, etc. -- riding a bike is perceived as much more dangerous than it really is and is in fact riskier in the United States than in other countries and riskier than it should be. We have a responsibility to point that out and suggest a data-driven approach to fixing those issues.

The data suggest that both education and engineering solutions are necessary to reduce the annual toll of bicyclist fatalities, and that pretending one or the other is the only solution is fanciful and counterproductive. The League's commitment to providing valuable and relevant bicyclist education programs through a network of trained instructors is stronger than ever as a result of compiling this report. There is no question in our minds that bicyclists can dramatically reduce their risks of being in a crash (of any kind) by doing a few simple things right -- following the rules, being visible, riding with traffic, staying off the sidewalk and out of the gutter.

Equally, we believe there a lot of engineering changes to our roadways that must be made to improve bicyclists safety and comfort -- and dramatically increase the chances of someone getting on a bike in the first place. In some cases, especially on higher speed, higher volume roads, that's going to mean protected bikeways. Rather than oppose these, as some vehicular cyclists have been known to do, we should be ensuring high quality infrastructure coupled with new training components that teach people how to ride in these "new" facilities. At the very least, cyclists who don't feel the need for protected bikeways themselves should accept the reality that most people do -- and not stand in their way.

Ironically, the EBC report suggests that perhaps the greatest improvements in safety for bicyclists have nothing to do with either bicyclist education or protected bikeways. Distracted driving (in all its various forms), excessive speed, and continued tolerance of poor driving by the law enforcement and judicial community combine to make our streets and highways uncivilized and unforgiving places for bicyclists and pedestrians -- not to mention the 30,000 motorists who die on our roads every year as well.

A lot of people have mentioned the fact that the report is just about fatalities and that the bigger crash picture is not reflected in EBC. That's absolutely correct, and we are crystal clear about that throughout the report. That's one reason why we believe the "hit from behind" percentage is higher than the same figure is reported for "all crashes." This one number has generated quite a bit of the controversy around the EBC report -- and it's one reason why we got started with the report in the first place. We kept seeing that "cause" reported in news reports we were seeing and it seemed at odds with our own education materials that plays down this number.

As we stopped to think about it (after collecting the data), we realized perhaps this helps explain why people fear being hit from behind -- in the rare cases when bicycling is in the news because someone has been killed, its very likely they've been hit from behind. Couple that with the reality that most people see bicyclists from behind the wheel of their car and are worried about hitting them or seeing them get hit by the distracted driver in front of them... and it's no wonder that's the predominant fear among infrequent or non-bike riders. It may also help explain why exhorting people to "take the lane" is counterintuitive and a tough sell, even though it may well be sound advice. That is useful knowledge to take into the classroom.

Finally, the truly scary part of the report is the number of questions and issues it rasies about the quality of the data we have to work with -- and this is for the fatal crashes, about which we supposedly know the most!

Comments

Khal Spencer (not verified) Says

Good stuff. Thanks, Andy.

June 4, 2014 at 12:05pm

Ed (not verified) Says

regarding news reports: you could do a useful bit of research by comparing the list of fatalities you found in news reports with the full list. What is the common thread for 174 fatalities in 2012 alone (726-552) those not reported?

June 4, 2014 at 3:34pm

Neal (not verified) Says

Hello Andy,
Well done.
There are many places to wade into this discussion ..
But ... to pick one ...
The 30,000 motorists that die each year in crashes is a number you can bank on ... year after year with about 421,000 injured .... some with disabling injuries.
Are we going to ask the cyclist to put their safety in the hands of these motorists? These same motorists have about 5479 rear end collisions EACH DAY in the US .... (and in about 1/2 of them never apply the brakes) in addition to about 10,959 other category crashes EACH DAY in the US according to the NHTSA based on police reports.
Riding a bicycle in front of the trajectory of these motorists and depending on the motorist to avoid hitting the cyclist is a poor bet for the cyclist.
The paucity of data on motorists'/cyclists' crashes that ride in the center of the travel lane of fast moving motorist traffic allows 'VC' or 'Cycling Savvy' advocates to tout the safety advantages of this behavior because so few cyclists practice it.
Andy, keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Neal
+1 mph Faster

June 4, 2014 at 4:06pm

Neil Schneider (not verified) Says

I'd be interested in your definition of "engineering changes" since nothing I've seen from separated but equal facilities proponents has anything resembling engineering involved. We have some of what you propose where I live. Some of it is junk. Not useful for a cyclist that wants to actually travel by bicycle, cross street turning is blocked by curbs, requiring me to act as a pedestrian to cross the street. We don't need our precious tax money spent to create more of this useless junk. If they aren't really engineered, by traffic engineers, then they are useless.
--
Neil Schneider velorambler over-at gmail dot com
http://www.velorambler.com
Quest Velomobile QB086
Surly Long Haul Trucker
Bachetta Giro 26 (for sale)
Bilenky Viewpoint Tandem
Bike Friday New World Traveler
__o
_'\<,_
(*)/ (*)
"Work to eat, eat to live, live to bike, bike to work." -- Naomi Bloom

June 4, 2014 at 6:24pm

Nick Kasoff (not verified) Says

I'd be a lot less likely to oppose "protected bikeways" if our so-called cycling advocates would insist on them being actually "protected" and not also promote lesser solutions which are dangerously inadequate. Let's start with what "protected" means: no cars, no pedestrians, no conflicts, period. If cars can cross it, it's not protected. If pedestrians walk on it, it's not protected. If cops, motorcycles, delivery vehicles, or anything else can use it, it's not protected. If driveways cross it, it's not protected. If it puts you in somebody's blind spot at every intersection, it's not protected.
Here in Missouri, it's even worse. Our co-called cycling advocates love painted bike lanes. They have no problem with cyclists being shoved into gutters or against parked cars. They have no concern for pavement conditions or maintenance. Every time such issues are brought up to them, they stick their fingers in their ears and pretend you aren't there.
I have a relationship with my county highway and traffic department, but we don't even have any standards to recommend. Is a painted on bike lane with uneven and constantly changing pavement type (smooth, rough, asphalt, concrete), and a driveway every 100 feet safer than nothing? I won't ride in it. But it gives motorists a great excuse for being aggressive toward me.
Yes, I am a vehicular cyclist. I've only had one injury accident in my cycling "career" - it was on a "multi-use trail." A pedestrian stepped in front of me, I veered, and woke up in the ER with a broken wrist. I went from being an occasional user of "cycling infrastructure" to avoiding it as if my safety depended on it.

June 9, 2014 at 8:06pm

Martin Pion (not verified) Says

The only truly acceptable separated bicycle facility I have seen during 44 years of adult bike commuting (and, since 1997, as a certified bicycling instructor), was when living in England.
It was the Stevenage Cycleway System, designed by chief engineer Eric Claxton, himself a cyclist, which was critical. His goal was to provide for all modes equitably: motor vehicle, bus, bicycling and walking. He accomplished this for the last two by designing a mini road system that was developed simultaneously with the main road system. Bicyclists had two-way nominally 11 ft. wide cycle tracks alongside 7 ft. wide curbed sidewalks. (Where more space existed the cycle track and sidewalk was separated by a wide grass verge that later attracted horse riders!) The cycle track was open to both bicyclists and motorized bicycles.
The most important feature was the way the cycle track was engineered at intersections. Roads and cross streets were elevated 6 ft. and the cycle track lowered 3 ft. to give a light airy inviting underpass with a shallow grade.
The system was well used into the late 1970s when I first visited it, but use declined with increasing car ownership.
Something I didn't fully appreciate until becoming a competent cyclist and instructor in the U.S. was that such a system is not financially feasible unless built on virgin farmland to a high standard, as was done in Stevenage, a New Town developed under a quasi-government Master Plan.
Further, it's unnecessary, as I began to realize after becoming a certified instructor and learning myself what makes cycling safe, in part by teaching others.
The number one factor affecting my personal safety, whether driving a car or a bike, is my own behavior on the road, and knowledge of what makes it safe.
The CyclingSavvy program hones those lessons so I can recommend it. The League of American Bicyclists road course for adults dilutes it by spending time on mechanical issues which aren't essential, as well as by being ambivalent towards lane control, which I see as important, if not essential, on multi-lane urban and suburban roads. I've posted extensively on the subject on my blog and elsewhere.
Please view two short videos illustrating some of the problems with bike lanes I've posted on Vimeo here:
Oppose Bike Lanes! at vimeo.com/89812887
Oppose Door Zone Bike Lanes! at vimeo.com/91836622
To see an 8 min. video showing how lane control works just fine in my home town of Ferguson in North St. Louis County, Missouri, please visit my blog featuring the video:
BICYCLING Made SIMPLE at tinyurl.com/akbljq8.
It's noteworthy that in June 2012 Ferguson became the first city in Missouri to repeal its discriminatory Far To the Right ordinance, modeled on state law, replacing it with an ordinance specifically ALLOWING curb lane control on multi-lane roads. That is a goal we should all be pursuing.

June 9, 2014 at 10:10pm

Bruce Lierman (not verified) Says

It's unfortunate Mr. Clarke wasn't so equivocal and reserved in his interview with Bicycle Retail and Industry News, where he divides cyclists into two polarizing categories: "For the longest time it’s been an article of faith that we should be taking the lane, and that separated bike facilities are unnecessary …".
I do believe in taking the lane. And I do believe there are locations and designs of separate infrastructure that can make cycling safer. I spent the month of May riding in The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.
For Mr. Clarke to make such a polarizing and abrasive statement, especially based on such a questionable body of study (who ever heard of using Media reports when the crash data itself is available?) doesn't seem to me to be a very effective way to galvanize support for improved cyclist safety.